The old joke in football is that some clubs write the managers name in chalk on his door, at Southampton FC it used to be carved, now they barely get the chance to get it up even in chalk.

The job at Saints was once seen as the safest seat in football for a manager, when Ted Bates took over in the summer of 1955 until Chris Nicholl was sacked in May 1991, those 36 years saw only three men at the helm, firstly Bates who unarguably built the foundations that still underpin the football club today, after his 18 years at the helm, Lawrie McMenemy came in and eventually presided over a golden period during his dozen years and even Chris Nicholl had stability and six full seasons in charge.

Then came Ian Branfoot and the start of a turbulent period, ironically Branfoot did two full seasons plus another half before departing acrimoniously in January 1994.

Ironic because Branfoot's tenure of 2 years and 7 months in charge including two full seasons has never been beaten both in terms of length of service as manager and in completing more than two full seasons in charge.

In the 36 years from Ted Bates being appointed till Nicholl being sacked we only had three managers, in the 26 years since we have had 20 including current Saints boss Claude Puel.

That means the average lifespan of a Saints manager is 15 months.

Since Branfoot completed his two full seasons and a bit, only one other man managed to complete two actual full seasons in charge at the club until Ronald Koeman arrived or rather left in the summer of 2015, yes only David Jones and Ronald Koeman have so far managed two complete seasons since Branfoot's sacking in 1994 over 23 years ago.

Along the way there have been reasons why managers have come and gone and we haven't sacked a manager since Nigel Adkins in January 2013, but in that time few have come anywhere near Branfoot's record sat in 1994, only Burley, who managed just over 2 years and Nigel Adkins and Gordon Strachan have actually looked like coming close, the latter two both doing around 2 years 4 months at the club but in that time they each only completed one full season, all arriving and being sacked mid season.

This time last year we were hoping that Ronald Koeman would be the first man to complete three full years in charge since Chris Nicholl, however that was not to be and emphasised the issues with the modern day game and the problems it creates for clubs and their managers, they either fail and get sacked or they succeed and get poached.

If we take Arsene Wenger out of the equation and also those managers like Eddie Howe or Sean Dyche who have been at their clubs for a long period but not continuously in the Premier League, the longest serving Premier League manager is Mark Hughes who took over at Stoke four years ago, then next up is Mauricio Pochetino who celebrates three years in charge at Spurs tomorrow.

That shows what the Premier League has become, of all this seasons clubs, only three have managers who have completed the last three seasons fully, Pochettino is the 14th longest serving manager in the entire 92 league clubs.

If Koeman had stayed at Saints this season not only would he be Saints longest serving manager in 26 years he would have been 15 th behind our ex manager at Spurs.

Claude Puel is 53rd in this list.

So that is why the Saints board are looking long and hard at Puel and his future, in the last 8 years since the Liebherr takeover they have craved that stablity and indeed since Cortese left looked for it understanding that is what is needed to give us long term success, but what they have found is that only Arsenal have achieved that and out of the 92 clubs only 3 have managers that have been in place more than 5 years, only 14 with more than three years service from their manager.

So that perhaps illustrates that Saints are not too far removed from the reality of the rest of football, although it has to be said that few clubs have had as many managers as us over the past 26 years.

Photo: Action Images

highfield49 added 09:00 - May 26 Clearly money is a factor in the rapid turnover of managers, the demands for success over stability are massive in terms of marketing and media exposure. The likes of Stoke, Burnley, West Brom, Bournemouth and, to a slightly lesser extent, ourselves are not exactly high profile in world football. Having a "celebrity" manager like RK lifted us out of the pack for a short while in media perception. In terms of the old guard such as Ted and Lawrie the biggest factor in my view was that the manager recruited the players and had a team who would deliver not only on the pitch but in terms of loyalty to the "boss". Those days have gone, probably for ever, many players treat managers with little or no respect. Whilst I would say that respect has to be earned I also believe that players with a poor attitude should be shown the door as quickly as poor managers, or is the manager just the easy scapegoat?

3

LordDZLucan added 09:07 - May 26 If a club is perceived as underperforming somebody has to be blamed. The board don't want the finger pointed at them so they fire the manager. The manager is now a lightning rod for any perceived problems at a club which is why they don't last too long. That is where we are at Saints. We've had a mildly disappointing season caused by the board not wanting to spend money on players whilst they're in the throes of selling the club. The board doesn't want to be blamed so its more than happy for Puel to take the heat. They won't want to sack him because of the compensation they'll have to pay but they will sack him if they feel they have to in order to keep the fans of their back.

2

Sanguin added 09:16 - May 26 This is a really good article. I think this is why the club will think long and hard before taking any decision on Puel’s future.
1

helpineedsomebody added 09:41 - May 26 he has proved himself 46points plus a cup final all i want is 40points a season then we stay at the top table every season thats the reailty of southampton fc
1

SaintPaulVW added 10:40 - May 26 Good points. Quite a few of the ' higher profile' managers chose to leave us rather than be sacked, so loyalty is not a one way street in the modern age. This needs to be factored into any decision on a replacement. You may get rid of Puel to get someone in but how long will they actually stick around if it goes well. Interesting decision to make. Clearly no one wants the performances that saw the season out but has he performed that badly over the season to roll the dice on a replacement.

1

GeordieSaint added 12:44 - May 26 Has Garry Monk been sacked yet? Bring back Sturrock.
0

legod7 added 13:16 - May 26 Yes we finished 8th and, yes we reached the EFL Final , but and for me it's a very big BUT, the style of football this season has been absolutely abysmal.....No goals in the last 5 home games. Only 17 at home all season.........Since we have been back in the Premier League it was all supposed to be about playing football "The Southampton Way" .We had that with Adkins, Pochettino and Koeman.... This season it has been more about the WBA way......Yes,I have renewed my ST, yes I will support Puel if he stays but personally I think we should get rid of him sooner rather than later. Get someone in who get us playing the type of football that we are used to.

0

bstokesaint added 13:36 - May 26 It is amusing to see that managers like Branfoot and George Burley, both of whom were absolutely clueless (and obviously so from an early stage) were given longer than some fans want to give Puel. I hate kneejerk reactions and making scapegoats of managers when things go wrong. As I’ve said before I wouldn’t be gutted if Puel got the boot, but I don’t think he’s the sole cause of things that haven’t gone well this season and I’m not sure bringing a new manager in will rectify this. This whole takeover situation needs to be resolved ASAP. If we still have this nonsense hanging over us come July I dread to think of the impact it might have on next season. This club really needs some stability soon. It’s not fair on the fans. Obviously ML (god rest his soul) didn’t anticipate being one of those big shocks to rock the club, but the departures of Cortese, Poch, RK and big name players have just caused unrest and worry over the past few seasons. We need a bl00dy quiet summer when he can consolidate and think about who we want to bring in to improve the club.

3

LordDZLucan added 13:51 - May 26 Spot on bstokesaint.
1

BoondockSaint added 13:58 - May 26 Is this possibly why they signed a "no name" manager? Someone who wouldn't kick up a fuss about not signing new talented players , and other teams won't come looking for?
1

SaintBrock added 21:31 - May 26 The only problem with trying to emulate Arsene Wenger's long tenure with Puel at Southampton is that Puel is no Wenger. Just because he played under him doesn't mean he is a clone of his master which seems to be the logic that the board are clinging too out to desperation.
0

SanMarco added 12:54 - May 27 Following up on Boondock's point - isn't this the dilemma we have: take on a manager who is 'going places' and sure enough after a couple of seasons he goes places, pick a less charismatic man who is not 'going places' and well, that's where we are now. I am genuinely torn - I agree with most of the posts from BOTH sides of the argument. If Puel goes he will be a 'scapegoat' for failings that were not his alone (transfer policy etc), if he does goes it will be for failings that were at least partly his fault (Europe, paint-drying style of football). God knows what they are 'reviewing', Les and his friends must have already decided what they are going to do - so why in the hell not just DO IT...

3

aceofthebase added 20:35 - May 27 Silva has gone to Watford. Praying that we don't lose Puel and get Moyes or any of the other rejects
1

SaintBrock added 08:56 - May 28 Good points SanMarco. One answer might be to hire a manager who is well known, very experienced and been around the block a few times so that none of the big clubs will be interested in poaching him. We must stop being a training centre for emerging talent which is how we are seen now, players and managers. de Boer, Ranieri, Wenger... there are lost of them around. If we want to be a club of limited ambition then that's the way to do it. As for communicating the outcome of the "season review", no chance. We've heard nothing much this season from our so called "open and transparent super communicators" so why expect a change of spots now. We are only fans after all and it's *** to do with us!

1

garethhartwell added 10:48 - May 30 This is a very interesting article. But I think we need to look beyond just the manager in terms of stability in the modern game. In particular a large part of the role Ted Bates or Lawrie took on is now undertaken by Les Reed and Ralph Krueger. I'm not sure whether Claude Puel is the right person for us but I'm absolutely convinced that it is more important that Les Reed stays because this is where the club's stability has largely come from.

0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Rochdale Polls